pbs_job_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the tool as 'MUTATION', explains the dry-run mechanism with PLAN capture, the confirm flag for execution, synchronous return without task UPID, and that it only affects config without altering backup data. This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (4 sentences) with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, job_type values, dry-run behavior with confirm, config requirement, and sibling tool references. It is front-loaded with the key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 7 parameters with full schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core functionality, behavioral nuances, config prerequisites, and sibling relationships. No critical information is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the job_type values, the dry-run behavior tied to confirm, the purpose of PLAN capture, and the context for proximo_target (multi-target config). This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool updates a PBS scheduled job, specifies the valid job_type values (sync|verify|prune), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools pbs_job_create and pbs_job_delete. The verb 'update' and resource 'PBS scheduled job' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides alternative tools for creation and deletion ('To create use pbs_job_create; to remove use pbs_job_delete'). It also explains the dry-run default behavior and the required PROXIMO_PBS_* config, giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.